Consumer Complaint No. 45 of 2016
Date of filing: 21.3.2016 Date of disposal: 07.7.2017
Complainant: Ratna Rashid Banerjee, W/o. Abdul Rashid, resident of Bhangakuthi West, PO: Rajbati, PS. & District: Burdwan, PIN – 713 104, West Bengal.
-V E R S U S-
Opposite Party: 1. The Director, Office of the Director of Pension, Provident Fund and Croup Insurance, Purta Bhavan, 2nd Floor, Salt Lake, Kolkata – 700 091, West Bengal.
2. District Inspector of Schools, Burdwan District, Burdwan,PIN – 713 101.
3. A.I. of Schools, Kalibazar, PO., PS. & District: Burdwan, PIN – 713 101.
4. Smt. Minati Banerjee, Teacher-in-Charge, Painta Pannarani Balika Vidyalaya, Vill. & PO: Painta, PS: Raina, District: Burdwan, PIN – 713 427.
5. Secretary, Painta Pannarani Balika Vidyalaya, Vill. & PO: Painta, PS: Raina, District: Burdwan, PIN – 713 427.
Present: Hon’ble Member: Smt. Silpi Majumder.
Hon’ble Member: Sri Pankaj Kumar Sinha.
Appeared for the Complainant: Ld. Advocate, Subrata Ghosh & Debdas Rudra.
Appeared for the Opposite Party 1,2& 3: None (ex parte).
Appeared for the Opposite Party 4& 5: Ld. Advocate, Mirza Raja Begg (ex parte).
J U D G E M E N T
This complaint is filed by the Complainant u/S. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service, as well as, unfair trade practice against the OPs as the OPs did not pay her residual amount of her provident fund money till filing of this complaint.
The brief fact of the case of the Complainant is that she is a retired Headmistress of Painta Pannarani Balika Vidyalaya, Burdwan and she retired from service on 30.06.2014. At present she is a senior citizen of India. The Complainant on several occasions requested the OP-1 to release the residual part of her provident fund money, which she is entitled to get under Employees provident Fund Scheme from the OPs. She by issuing letters dated 09.03.2015, 23.03.2015 and 31.03.2015 requested the OP-4 to release the amount, but the OP-4 did not pay any heed to her request and day by day the OP-4 has been harassing the Complainant taking one plea after another. The OP-4 along with the OP-5 of the school took over the charges from the Complainant and released her from all responsibilities and liabilities on and from 30.06.2014. In the year 2000 the OP-4 had done immoral and inhuman act at the time examining the examination paper of the then first girl with an intention to make her daughter as first girl in the class On the complaints of the teachers and local guardians the Complainant being the then Headmistress of the school had taken steps against the OP-4 and the managing committee of the school along with a resolution on this matter. On that day the OP-4 threatened the Complainant that after retirement, when the time will come for releasing the retirement benefit to her, then the OP-4 will give a lesson to the Complainant. Thereafter about more than three months ago of filing this complaint the OP-4 demanded 50% of the residual dues and it was told that if the same amount will be paid then only procedure for releasing the remaining amount of the provident fund will be started, but the Complainant refused to accept the proposal. Then the OP-4 out of personal grudge had started to harass the Complainant by taking one plea after another. Such activity on the part of the OP-4 is not only unexpected but also intolerable and amounts to unfair trade practice. As the OPs did not pay any heed to the request of the Complainant, she gave legal notice through her Ld. Advocate Mr. Subrata Ghosh on 04.01.2016 to the OPs asking for to release the residual amount of the provident fund money within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice, failing which the Complainant will be instructed by her Ld. Advocate to take appropriate legal actions both civil and criminal against the OP-1 before the appropriate Court of Law without any reference and you shall be liable for the consequence thereof. But the OP-1 willfully refused the legal notice issued by her Ld. Advocate. Thereafter finding no other alternative the Complainant being compelled has approached before this Ld. Forum by filing this complaint praying for direction upon the OPs to pay a sum of Rs.7, 788.72 towards the residual amount of her provident fund money, Rs.30, 000=00 as compensation towards mental pain, agony and harassment and litigation cost of Rs.10, 000=00 to her.
After admission of this complaint notices were issued upon the OPs. On 29.04.2016 the OP-3, 4 and 5 were appeared and prayed time for filing written version. On that day as the service of notices upon the OP-1 & 2 was not completed, further time was fixed for s/r and appearance of the OP-1 and 2 and filing written version by the OP-3, 4 & 5. On subsequent dates as the OP3, 4 and 5 did not file written version and in the meantime statutory period for filing the same as per the Consumer Protection Act, 1986; hence this Ld. Forum was pleased to fix the complaint ex parte against the Op-3, 4 and 5. The record shows that on 16.08.2016 though the OP-2 received the notice, but did not turn up to contest the complaint, so it was ordered that the complaint will run ex parte also against the OP-2. As till 21.10.2016 the notice could not be served upon the OP-1, the Complainant was directed to take fresh step for service of notice to the said OP. the order dated 14.12.2016 reveals that the OP-1 received the notice on 21.11.2016, but till 10.01.2017 as the OP-1 did not file any written version, hence the complaint was fixed for hearing ex parte against the OP-1. Therefore this complaint is running ex parte against all the OPs.
At the time of final argument on behalf of the OP-4 and 5 written notes of argument has been filed with a copy to the other side. During argument the Ld. Counsel for the OP-4 and 5 has advanced argument on law point.
We have carefully perused the record; documents filed by the Complainant, WNA filed by the OP-4 and 5 and the rulings on which the OP-4, 5 and the Complainant have placed their reliance. It is seen by us that the Complainant being the Headmistress of Painta Pannarani Balika Vidyalaya retired from the service on 30.06.2014, at the time of her retirement or subsequently whatever it may be she got her partial provident fund amount, there is some residual part of her provident fund money for which request was made by her to the OP-1, the Complainant is certainly entitled to get the entire amount, she issued several letter to the OPs on 09.03.2015, 23.03.2015 and 31.03.2015 requesting to release the balance amount, to no effect, request was made to the OP-4, she did not pay any heed to her request, the OP-4 & 5 of the concerned school took over the charges from the Complainant on 30.06.2014, the Complainant got release from her all responsibilities and liabilities on and from her date of retirement, legal notice was given to the OPs, notice was received by the OPs, no fruitful result yielded, hence this complaint is initiated by the Complainant. The allegation of the Complainant is that the OPs have arbitrarily and illegally held up her legitimate residual provident fund money for a prolonged period.
We have noticed that in the petition of complaint the Complainant has stated on affidavit that ‘few months prior to filing of this complaint the OP-4 demanded 50% of the residual dues and the Complainant was told by the OP-4 that if such amount is paid by her, then only she will purse the procedure to release the remaining amount of the provident fund. But as the Complainant refused to accept the said proposal, hence the OP-4 out of personal grudge started to cause harassment to the Complainant. According to the Complainant such activity on the part of the OP-4 is not only unexpected, but also intolerable which amounts to unfair trade practice.’ Admittedly the OP-4 has neither contested the complaint by filing written version nor challenged the order dated 13.07.2016 of this Ld. Forum whereby the petition filed by the OP-4 for filing written version was rejected and it was ordered that the case will heard expert against the OP-4. So the abovementioned contention of the Complainant on affidavit certainly carries evidentiary value, moreover where it remains unchallenged.
The Complainant has adduced evidence on affidavit along with some documents in support of her contention.
The Ld. Counsel for the OP-4 and 5 has placed reliance on some rulings-
- 2008 (1) CPR 67, passed by the Hon’ble SDCRC, Maharashtra, Mumbai, in the case of Accountant General vs. Pandurang Maruti Ingawale, decided on 10.10.2007. Upon careful reading of the said ruling in our view the same is not applicable in the case in hand because the subject matter of the said case is totally different from the instant and though the case is running ex parte against the OP-4 and 5, but as the said Ops have filed WNA, we have considered the same.
- 2014 4 CPR (NC) 663, passed by the Hon’ble NCDRC, in the case of Reema Saharan vs. Haryana Urban Development Authority, Through its estate Officer, decided on 10.11.2014. We have perused the said judgment and in our view the said ruling is also not applicable in the case in hand because the fact of the relied case is not at all similar and identical in nature. In the relied case elaborate evidence was necessary, but in the instant case as the complaint is running ex parte against all the OPs, hence the OPs cannot take such plea that in this complaint also complicated facts and law are involved for which elaborate evidence is necessary.
- 2015 4 CPR (NC) 735, passed by the Hon’ble NCDRC, in the case of UTI Bank vs. SPEC Computers and Communications & Others, decided on 24.11.2015. We have gone through the said ruling and we are of the view that the said rulings has no application in the case in hand because the Complainant did not make any allegation about forgery, fraud etc, hence this complaint is very well maintainable before this Ld. Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
The Complainant has placed her reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, reported in 1999 (10) Supreme 332, passed in the case of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner vs. Shiv Kumar Joshi, decided on 14.12.1999. We have carefully perused the said judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court and it is seen by us that Their Lordships have held that a member of Employee Provident Fund Scheme under the provident Fund Act, is a consumer within meaning of Consumer protection Act, the scheme is a service and, therefore the provisions of Consumer protection Act, 1986 can be invoked against the Provident Fund Commissioner by a member of the Employees provident Fund scheme. As the fact of the relied case is totally same and identical, hence the abovementioned dictum is very well applicable in the case in hand.
Now we turn up our eyes as to whether the Complainant is entitled to get the relief as sought for or not. It is true the Complainant has succeeded to prove the allegation against the OPs by adducing cogent documents in support of her contention. As the complaint is running ex parte against all the OPs and the OPs did not bother to challenge ex parte orders passed by this Ld. Forum before the Higher Forum/Commission, hence the contention of the Complainant has reached in its finality.
Though the OP-4 and 5 have filed their WNA, but within the four corners of the same no whisper have been made that the balance amount of the provident fund money has been given to the Complainant or step was taken for making payment of the same, but the Complainant without extending her co-operation has filed this complaint with mal-intention with a view to grab some money through an illegal manner or there is/was some problem for which the amount could not be disbursed. The content of the WNA of the OP-4 and 5 clearly reveals that till date the Complainant did not get the residual amount of her provident fund money and to us which she is obviously entitled to get the same. As the OPs have intentionally debarred the Complainant from getting her legitimate claim towards the residual amount of the provident fund without assigning any reason, hence such action of the OPs can be termed as deficiency in service, for which the Complainant is entitled to get compensation. Admittedly by filing this complaint the Complainant has incurred some expenses, for which she is also entitled to get litigation cost.
Going by the foregoing discussion, hence it is
O r d e r e d
that the complaint is allowed ex parte against the OP-1 without any cost and the complaint is allowed ex parte against the OP-2 to 5 with cost. The OP-1 is directed to release the residual amount of provident fund money to the Complainant to the tune of Rs.7, 788.72 along with interest of 6% p.a. from the date of filing of this complaint by the Complainant i.e. 21.03.2016 till realization of the entire amount within 45 days from the date of passing this judgment, in default, the aforementioned total decreetal amount i.e. (Rs.7,788.72/- + 6% interest p.a.) shall carry penal interest @ 10% p.a. for the default period. The OPs are further directed to pay compensation either jointly or severally a sum of Rs.15,000=00 to the Complainant towards compensation due to unnecessary harassment, mental agony and pain within a period of 45 days from the date of passing of this judgment. The OP-2 to 5 are directed to pay either jointly or severally litigation cost of Rs.4,000=00 to the Complainant within a period of 45 days from the date of passing of this judgment. In default of making payment of compensation and cost amount by the aforementioned OPs, the Complainant will be at liberty to put the entire decree/order in execution as per provision of law.
Let plain copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost as per provisions of law.
Dictated and corrected by me.
(Silpi Majumder)
Member
DCDRF, Burdwan
(Pankaj Kumar Sinha) (Silpi Majumder)
Member Member
DCDRF, Burdwan DCDRF, Burdwan
